vermontguardian.com — William Rice, P.E., is a registered professional civil engineer who worked on structural steel (and concrete) buildings in Boston, New York, and Philadelphia. He was also a professor at Vermont Technical College where he taught engineering materials, structures lab, and other building related courses.
Mar 1, 2007 View in Crawl 4
honestjoeMar 2, 2007
The fact that a device as been made and ?recently? tested to cut through vertical steel columns in a fraction of a second. Held on magnetically for quick placement and remote detonated (NO WIRES NEEDED)! Also the device was made by useing an OLD patent that was obtained before 9/11.<a class="user" href="http://www.journalof911studies.org/articles/Answers%20to%20Frequently%20Asked%20Questions%20Regarding%20Thermite.pdf">http://www.journalof911studies.org/articles/Answers%20to%20Frequently%20Asked%20Questions%20Regarding%20Thermite.pdf</a>Plus more and more steel samples have been obtained and analyzed and do show signs of controled demolition! Something NIST refuses to do. Remeber NIST never to this day have they tested the steel for any kind of explosive residue.<a class="user" href="http://www.supportthetruth.com/jones.php">http://www.supportthetruth.com/jones.php</a>
mindfulMar 2, 2007
liam76 you are mistaken you zombie. There are tons of peer reviewed papers proving NIST is wrong. These are only a few.Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse? by Steven E. Jones<a class="user" href="http://www.journalof911studies.org/articles/Why%20Indeed%20Did%20the%20WTC%20Buildings%20Completely%20Collapse%20Jones%20Thermite%20World%20Trade%20Center%20J24.pdf">http://www.journalof911studies.org/articles/Why%20Indeed%20Did%20the%20WTC%20Buildings%20Completely%20Collapse%20Jones%20Thermite%20World%20Trade%20Center%20J24.pdf</a>The NIST WTC Investigation-- How Real Was The Simulation? by By Eric Douglas, R.A.<a class="user" href="http://www.journalof911studies.org/volume/200612/NIST-WTC-Investigation.pdf">http://www.journalof911studies.org/volume/200612/NIST-WTC-Investigation.pdf</a>9/11 - Acceleration Study Proves Explosive Demolition by Frank Legge<a class="user" href="http://www.journalof911studies.org/volume/200611/911-Acceleration-Study-Proves-Explosive-Demolition.pdf">http://www.journalof911studies.org/volume/200611/911-Acceleration-Study-Proves-Explosive-Demolition.pdf</a>
Closed AccountMar 2, 2007
Have we ever had a REAL investigation into ANYTHING !!! Ok other then Monica Lewinski.
miles01110Mar 2, 2007
Hmm, Popular Mechanics vs. professional engineer. Tough choice!
joeyjesusMar 2, 2007
i can see most of the smart ones have stopped arguing the government's case. tasting shoes for foot in mouth after shouting tin foil moonbats for 5 long years, cuz the smart ones know the truth and the truth is the media and the government ain't nuthin but one and the same pack of liars.
lisztmanMar 2, 2007
I did not say that it fell totally at freefall, unimpeded, and unresisted. However, considering the massive momentum vs. the reacting forces of the lower floors, this resisting force was minor. Additionally, considering the fact that in essence each floor is constructed similarly, each floor would be progressively less effective at resisting the falling mass. Again, I did not say that the lower levels were not offering resistance. Rather, that this resistance was progressively less effective at slowing the descent.As for the debris which falls to the sides of the building, this is very easily explained. Not everything goes straight down. Often, stuff will be deflected to the sides of their originally intended path, due to other structures which impede this downward path (YES ZOMG RESISTANCE).Interestingly enough, this sort of behavior is EXACTLY the type of thing that you would expect from an UNCONTROLLED demolition. In a controlled demolition, you want everything to fall straight down, which in the case of one of the towers (I forget which), there was significant "mushrooming" of the debris fall path (exactly what is to be avoided). In addition, the mere fact that there is air in each of the floors, and they are being rapidly crushed, is a contributing factor to the side-falling debris.As for the whole pulverizing of the support beams, you seem to be under the impression that its impossible for concrete to crumble at all while being smacked with thousands of tons of force. There is no where that described all of the concrete as having been totally pulverized in mid air. However, to say that all the support beams would remain perfectly intact until impacting the floor in such a scenario is a sign of ignorance at best, or a blatant lie at worst.In summation:downward momentum + gravitational acceleration > upward resiting forces
honestjoeMar 2, 2007
As much as they dont want to let his research get out... Dr. Jones paper has been published 2 times and in those peer reviews 8 of the peers were Professors with a PhD in Physics! That happens to be the related field of Dr. Jones paper though there were peers from other fields the ones that really matter are the 8 with a PhD in Physics! By they way even though it has only been published 2 times it has undergone 4 sets of peer reviews and only one of those was by the Journal of 9/11 Studies!2 was because of BYU and 1 of those should never of had to been done and the fact that it was shows IMO that BYU was dissloyal to one of their professors and long-term colleague. I understand BYU being afraid but damn to say they needed another set of peer review is the same as saying we can’t trust any of our own staff and colleagues to be able to properly peer review a paper!We’ve had a myriad of “explanations” that have are all mutually exclusive and promulgated by largely the same set of people. Now, as I recall many 9/11 truth researchers criticized these reports and at the the time proponents of each of these theories claimed large scale agreement among engineers and, similiar to your tact, that these researchers were merely talking out of their a**. Unfortunately for the “engineers” (and yourself), the truthers are batting 1.000 to their 0.000 so far as NIST has accepted the fact that their pancake theory is absurd and have dismissed it for a new theory. The blanket acceptance of the latest theory is disgustingly sad.Appealing to authority here is really laughable considering the appaling track record of these theories and anyone who chooses to merely restate NIST’s conclusions without verifying their data and analysis is engaging in the worst form of doublethink and intellectual dishonesty. “Some engineers . . . have accused NIST of repeatedly changing its explanation of the collapse mechanism.”<a class="user" href="http://www.nceplus.co.uk/b_bank/search_results_details/?report_ID=6937&report_num=0&channelid=6">http://www.nceplus.co.uk/b_bank/search_results_details/?report_ID=6937&report_num=0&channelid=6</a>“World Trade Center disaster investigators are refusing to show computer visualizations [i.e. models] of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers”.<a class="user" href="http://www.nceplus.co.uk/news/news_article?pid=1&aid=47166&sid=47&channelID=4&NewsComingFrom=civil_engineering">http://www.nceplus.co.uk/news/news_article?pid=1&aid=47166&sid=47&channelID=4&NewsComingFrom=civil_engineering</a>“a leading U.S. structural engineer said ‘By comparison [to the modeling of fires] the global structural model is not as sophisticated’ . . . The software used has been pushed to new limits, and there have been a lot of simplifications, extrapolations and judgement calls . . . it would be hard to produce a definitive visualization from the analysis so far.’ (free subscription required; copy posted here)(in other words, the government refused to release a visual model of the collapses, and even the non-visual computer models which the government used to examine why the trade centers collapsed are faulty).<a class="user" href="http://www.nceplus.co.uk/news/news_article?pid=1&aid=47166&sid=47&channelID=4&NewsComingFrom=civil_engineering">http://www.nceplus.co.uk/news/news_article?pid=1&aid=47166&sid=47&channelID=4&NewsComingFrom=civil_engineering</a>Jorg Schneider, Professor emeritus for structural engineering. “WTC7 was with the utmost probability brought down by explosives”.<a class="user" href="http://www.ibk.ethz.ch/emeritus/schneider">http://www.ibk.ethz.ch/emeritus/schneider</a>Heavy steel construction buildings like the Twin Towers, built with more than 100,000 tons of steel, are not even capable of “pancake collapse”, which normally only occurs with concrete structures of “lift slab” construction and could not occur in “redundant” welded-steel buildings, such as the towers, unless every supporting column were removed at the same time, as the Structural Engineer Charles Pegelow has pointed out.<a class="user" href="http://mp3.rbnlive.com/Fetzer/0608/20060824_Thu_Fetzer2.mp3">http://mp3.rbnlive.com/Fetzer/0608/20060824_Thu_Fetzer2.mp3</a>Structural Engineer Charles Pegelow has pointed out the American people are being lied to!<a class="user" href="http://www.911blogger.com/node/2257">http://www.911blogger.com/node/2257</a>Hugo Bachmann, Professor emeritus for structural engineering. “In my opinion WTC7 was with the utmost probability brought down by controlled demolition done by experts”<a class="user" href="http://www.ibk.ethz.ch/emeritus/...t/index_EN">http://www.ibk.ethz.ch/emeritus/...t/index_EN</a>Joseph M. Phelps, MS, PE. Structural Dynamicist (ret.), Charter Member, Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers “Air planes couldnt cause this. Something is cutting the collumns, its called cotrolled demolitions”<a class="user" href="http://www2.dca.ca.gov/pls/wllpub/WLLQRYNA$LCEV2.QueryView?P_LICENSE_NUMBER=7964&P_LTE_ID=741">http://www2.dca.ca.gov/pls/wllpub/WLLQRYNA$LCEV2.QueryView?P_LICENSE_NUMBER=7964&P_LTE_ID=741</a>Moreover, a leading firefighters’ trade publication called the investigation concerning the world trade center a “half-baked farce”. In addition, the official investigators themselves were largely denied funding, access to the site and the evidence contained there, or even access to such basic information as the blueprints for the world trade center. Similarly, a professor of fire protection engineering, and the former chief of the fire science and engineering division of the agency now investigating the world trade center disaster, wrote that the world trade center buildings could not have collapsed due to jet fuel fires, that evidence was being destroyed, and that there was no real investigation into the collapses.<a class="user" href="http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?Section=OnlineArticles&SubSection=Display&%20PUBLICATION_ID=25&ARTICLE_ID=131225">http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?Section=OnlineArticles&SubSection=Display&%20PUBLICATION_ID=25&ARTICLE_ID=131225</a><a class="user" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/25/nyregion/25TOWE.html">http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/25/nyregion/25TOWE.html</a><a class="user" href="http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=BS&p_theme=bs&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_field_label-0=Section&s_dispstring=allfieldsQuintiere%20AND%20section%20AND%20date&p_field_advanced-0=&p_text_advanced-0=Quintiere&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&xcal_useweights=no">http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=BS&p_theme=bs&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_field_label-0=Section&s_dispstring=allfieldsQuintiere%20AND%20section%20AND%20date&p_field_advanced-0=&p_text_advanced-0=Quintiere&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&xcal_useweights=no</a>Another expert on demolition has also said that the trade centers were brought down with explosives!<a class="user" href="http://www.pumpitout.com/audio/danny_jowenko_022207.mp3">http://www.pumpitout.com/audio/danny_jowenko_022207.mp3</a>I can go on and on. WAKE UP! You have been lied to, except so you can fix it.
bigmanoncampusMar 3, 2007
Wow, I explain basic calculus-based physics and I get a -9 digg total. You guys are ignorant conspiracy freaks.Newtons 2nd Law: F = dp/dt - - - (Force equals the change in momentum with respect to time) It is misquoted as F=ma because typically, that is for non-rocket-science problems, the mass doesn't change with time. But in the WTC tower collapse, the falling mass IS CHANGING, it is INCREASING.p = mv - - - (Momentum is mass times velocity)Now, a floor of mass m1 starts falling from a dead stop. It falls because gravity is accelerating it. If the floor that it falls onto (we'll call it m2) does not stop floor m1, then we have this situation:m1 still has velocity, we'll call the velocity just before impact v1. The velocity just after impact is v1 minus whatever was lost, we'll call the loss 'f', so v1 - f > 0... meaning we still have velocity left over. We'll call that velocity v2. So v1 - f = v2.Now, however we have more mass since floor 2 was broken loose and became part of the collapsing floors.so m = m1+m2.So now our momentum is (m1+m2) times v2. And, at the moment of impact between floors m1 and m2, we have this:(m1+m2)*v2 = (m1)*(v1) this is the law of conservation of momentum. I can apply it here because I'm referring to what we in physics call a "boundary condition" the boundary here is the time of impact between floor1 and floor2. I'm artificially reducing the dt in this case to near zero so that we have no acceleration.BUT, now we have two floors accelerating (at 9.8 m/s^2) towards a third floor, so at the time of impact on the third floor we have this momentum:(m1+m2)*(v1+v2)And any fool can see:(m1+m2)*(v1+v2) IS GREATER THAN (m1)*(v1)This means that the momentum of the falling floors is INCREASING, not remaining constant, as the collapse progresses. This means that it would indeed degrade into total free-fall very quickly when a building such as the WTC starts to collapse.In fact the law of conservation of momentum doesn't even enter into the overall picture because the building is under constant acceleration. Conservation of momentum only applies in an INERTIAL frame of reference, if there is any kind of acceleration, then it does not apply. The WTC tower, and indeed anything on the surface of the earth is all under constant acceleration, the acceleration of gravity, so technically none of us are in an inertial frame of reference. This fact doesn't come into play much in things like auto-accidents since there's no z-movement possible, but in any object that's falling, you bet it applies.You can disagree with me, you can bury me, but if you do you're an idiot. This is basic basic physics.
Closed AccountMar 4, 2007
I'm sure this has been buried by now..I want to read about Britney, XBox, Wii, IPOD, Obama, Billary, McCain, LINUX, VISTA, American Idol, Anna Nicole Smith, Windows XP Hacks, and related CRAP....